Why I Volunteer (Featuring a Side Rant on what a thankless job it can be)

There is a whole culture about Volunteerism that I've found myself indoctrinated into since becoming an adult. It started out innocently enough with volunteering for groups like my Homeowners Association and for extra projects at my first job. Then after kids came along it was the Early Childhood PTA, followed by the church. When one child was diagnosed with special needs, it became the Special Ed PTSA. When my kids joined Cub Scouts and Girl Scouts, those groups also required volunteers. This is not to mention the preschools, schools, and the various sporting activities over the years that run on volunteer power. The list goes on and on. Some involve leadership positions and large commitments of time and energy; many were just simple near-effortless tasks with a beginning and an end.

My Mother can't figure out why I volunteer for stuff. She did do some volunteering when my brother and I were in elementary school, but never a lead role. While I appreciate in hindsight that she was involved in our childhood, I can't seem to understand her attitude that volunteer leadership roles are for "other people" and I should "focus on my own family." If we all took that approach and shunned the leadership positions, there would be nothing there to volunteer for or to participate with in the first place. Who are the "other people" who should be taking the lead roles? Someone has to be that "other person." And why should the mysterious "other people" help me and my family if I am not willing to do so?

What I'd like to know is, how can we NOT volunteer for stuff? Many of these organizations benefit ourselves, our children, and our communities, and are fueled entirely or primarily by volunteers. How can we expect for there to be a team to put our kids on if nobody volunteers to coach? Or for there to be a scout troop if nobody volunteers to lead it? If we don't step up to volunteer, how can we expect others to give of themselves on behalf of our children if we ourselves aren't willing to do so? Better yet, how can we teach our kids about values like giving and service if we aren't willing to model those values? The measure of our lives is, in the end, what difference we can make while we're here. And you get out what you put in. If I'm not willing to put honest-to-goodness effort into creating the kind of world I want for my children, then I forfeit my say in our future.

That said, there's a lot about Volunteerism that people seem to have misconceptions about. "I am not getting paid to do this, so you should just be thankful for anything I do." And a variant of this, "I may not be doing my job completely, but I'm doing a little bit when I can, and that's better than nothing." Of course when it comes to volunteering, it's important to give of yourself whatever you can even if your time commitment may be small - but that should be taken into consideration when opting what to volunteer for, not after taking on too much. Something is better than nothing. But at the same time, some volunteers that I have encountered over the years have treated volunteer jobs as unimportant and easily ignored when one becomes ill or life otherwise becomes busy. While it's true that volunteer jobs are the first to go when a spouse is out of work or a family member is ill, and rightfully so, that should not mean that the volunteer job should be ignored. It still needs to be addressed. Volunteer jobs are often similar to paying jobs in that people are depending on you, and others can't do their job (of their efforts will have been for naught) if anyone's part goes undone. If the group is depending on a volunteer to do a certain task by a certain time, then the volunteer has the same responsibility to let others know if they are in need of help. With a paying job, you'd call in sick or ask a coworker to cover if you were going to be absent. Volunteer jobs should be treated the same way.

Something I have lamented on several occasions over the years is that well-intentioned volunteers, often the ones with the biggest hearts, don't know when it's time to ask for help or resign. They don't want to be seen as quitters so even though they aren't able to get their tasks done, they don't ask for help and they don't give up their position. This makes for a very difficult decision on the part of the group's leader. If a volunteer knows that they are going to be unable to fulfill their obligations for a period of time and they let the leader know, arrangements can be made to cover for those tasks, and everyone is happy. If a volunteer resigns, the group can advertise their position as open and recruit another volunteer. Or the leader can do that task themselves, or delegate to another volunteer. But when a volunteer simply fails to perform a task (or fails to perform the task within the necessary time frame) without notifying anyone, it leaves the leader to guess what has been done and what still needs to be done. It also leaves the leader with the choices of doing that person's task for them behind the scenes, nagging them to do it, or as a last resort, removing a volunteer from their position (never pleasant for the leader or the volunteer). None of those options are very good.

Add to that, it's often difficult to know which path to choose because volunteers all have different styles. Some will always get their tasks done even if it sometimes involves asking for help or delegating. Some will do fabulous work, but only some of the time, depending on their personal schedule or other factors. Some read email, some don't. Some take ownership of their task; others prefer to wait for instructions. (Which is OK!) Some can receive instructions one time and run with it. Others need reminders every time something is to be done. So when you lead a group of volunteers, you have to relate to each volunteer not only based on what their position is within the organization, but also based on what their talent and "ownership style" is. Leaders need to keep mental tabs of what everyone needs to be doing and when, who needs email reminders and how far ahead, who needs phone reminders, and who will be insulted if reminded. Leaders also need to read minds to know who might be ill or just getting behind even when people don't tell you, or who has gotten busy at their job or with their child and has put their volunteer role on backburner. Leaders need to anticipate when they need to step in even if nobody tells them, and Leaders need to apologize for the mistakes of others without mentioning that it was someone else's mistake. Leaders need to be able to withstand criticizm and complaints from not only other volunteers, but at times, from the very people that the group is attempting to serve. Leaders also need to do all of this without the benefit of being able to talk things over with a friend, because since the volunteers often know each other socially, this would constitute gossip. Leaders also need to sometimes do double-work just in case. For example, what do you do when you are depending on a person to (okay some of you might recognize this) to bring the snacks to a certain event, but that person only does so about half the time and rarely lets you know when that half will be? The leader winds up having to always take the snack themselves or ask someone else to do so, but keep it in the car trunk as backup in case the first volunteer doesn't come through. This kind of double-work is exhausting. But the alternative is confronting the volunteer, which often leads to hurt feelings - and since we all know that volunteers are fueled by the warm fuzzy feeling that you get from volunteering, confrontation is rarely the way to recruit or maintain volunteers.

It is easy to judge the leader of any organization (or the boss at work) for their decisions. What I wish others realized is that it's just as hard to pick up the phone and tell someone "I appreciate your work but....(insert constructive criticism)" as it is to hear that criticism. What I wish would be for each person who feels like they could have done a better job to try being the leader or boss of something. See if you can make everyone happy all of the time. See if you can get things done on time when the pieces of the whole are not done on time. Go for it! But I can guarantee you that there will be times you get backed into a corner because as the leader, there are times you get put in a position where no matter what you do, someone will find fault with it. You're the top of the command so anything that goes wrong is your fault. Everyone else can be sick/busy/uninterested in doing a certain task, but the leader has to see to it that everything gets done anyways. The leader can't get sick or have a family emergency without finding coverage (like the time my daugher was bitten by a dog right before our PTA meeting with officer elections - I called the 1st VP from the ER with instructions on how to run the meeting.) Imagine how smoothly things would function if everyone replaced themselves instead of putting things off on the leader! Perhaps more people would be willing to volunteer to lead? It's no wonder that year after year with any organization I've ever been a part of, the hardest role to fill is that of the leader.

The other thing I wish volunteers would realize about the decisions that leaders must make is that oftentimes is boils down to procedure. It's not personal and has nothing to do with friendship or personal relationships. If a certain task needs to be done by a certain time, and a person fails to come through once, often this can be brushed off, especially if there is an extenuating circumstance. But if it happens repeatedly, the leader must counsel the person and perhaps review the agreed-upon tasks and timeframe. This, unfortunately, involves documenting occurences. If problems persist, the leader is left with really three (or four, if you consider the drastic) options.
(1) The leader does the task behind the scenes and lets the volunteer take credit for it.
(2) The leader can delegate the task to another volunteer (not as pleasant, because it involves talking with the other volunteer about the fact that the first volunteer has not come through - can be seen as gossiping)
(3) Depending on how crucial the task is, the leader can consult with the other leaders/board members as to whether the task can simply be left undone. (Not always an option, and can also turn into gossip.)
(4) Go through formal procedures to remove the volunteer from their position (awful for everyone involved)

So as a leader, I've been put in the position of having to choose one of these options more times than I can count. I tend to go with #1. I had to do #4 on one occasion and believe me, there is no way to do it without hurt feelings and worse yet, without notifying other people and thus the "gossip" factor. So #1 is the most unobtrusive, nicest way to handle this predicament.

Hmmm. Now that I'm re-reading my post here, I have to wonder if perhaps my Mother was right...

The Pinata Story, a.k.a. Everyone Gets a Blue Ribbon - and what this is really doing to our children

Maybe I'm getting old...but remember back in the days when you had to work hard to earn stuff? When you had to try out to make a team, and not everyone got picked? When you only got a blue ribbon if you came in first? When there was no "participation prize?" And it all made you motivated to practice stuff, try harder, and do your best? And, let's not forget, you had to learn how to congratulate the winner and lose gracefully? Is that stuff out of style these days?

Katie takes gymnastics lessons. She was probably barely 4 years old when her gym held a Gymnastics Meet. All the kids were encouraged to sign up. There were various events for the kids to compete in. Identical trophies and medals (yes, both) were ordered in advance for each participant. Katie got scared when she saw all the parents watching; she cried and did not participate while her group was at the first 3-4 events. I went out onto the floor to console her and encourage her to participate, but it was just not going to happen; she had gone from being shy to having an all-out cry, with the big heaving sobs, a tear-stained face, the whole bit. She's only 4 and she is shy by nature; perhaps I should not have signed her up in the first place. I thought it would be good practice for her. But it was not going to happen, at least, not at this day and time. I scooped her up and was carrying her out of there to go home to happier things when one of the staff followed me out. "Here is Katie's trophy and ribbon, " she said. "Can Katie come over here so we can take her picture on the winner's stand?" Katie was good with that, she didn't mind posing on the block with her trophy and ribbon, and as a parent, I felt powerless to have done anything to stop it. But didn't we just do a couple things wrong here? One, we rewarded negative behavior and noncompliance with a prize and positive attentioni. And two, we just sent Katie the message that there's really not much point in putting effort into anything because you get the same result whether you work hard or don't participate at all. Now, I'm not all mean, I would not begrudge my poor child a sticker or lollypop for at least being present and going through that trauma, if not participating in any way. But to give her the same prize that the kids who gave it 100% got...well, that's a slap in the face to those kids who did work hard and earn it.

Fast forward to Andy's 8th birthday party. We had a pool party here at home, complete with party games. The kids in attendance were around the same age, friends and classmates mostly. We had a pinata filled with candy. Each child got an equal shot at hitting it with a bat. Each child had been given a paper sack to put candy in when the magical time came. And, when the candy dumped out, each child had, in my opinion, an equal shot at picking up candy. But of course, not all kids got the same amount of candy. Some kids scrambled quicker, some picked up the pieces of candy quicker, some tried harder, some held back and waited. When it was all over, one boy came up to me and said, "He got 17 pieces, I only got 6. What are you going to do about it?" I felt like saying, "that's because he picked up 17 pieces and you picked up 6" but didn't think this would be a nice thing to say at my son's birthday party. So I found some more candy and evened things out with a smile on my face. And stewed on the inside.
Then, we went to the pool to play "ditch and dive." For this game, we throw pennies into the pool and give the kids goggles and let them try to pick up as many as they can. Any child who wasn't comfortable with this or didn't know how to swim or hold their breath, of course, was not forced to participate. There was enough activity going on in the yard that nobody would have been singled out by not participating. Well as you can probably guess, this was a repeat of the pinata scenario. One of the kids pointed out the obvious: "this game isn't fair because the kids who are better at diving down are getting more pennies." (Really, no kidding?) So.....it would appear that, not only should the kids who lose be entitled to the same prize as the kids who win....but the kids who win should not get any extra recognition for their talent or effort because to praise one child is, in effect, insulting the others....?

Inclusion for Children with Disabilities

You'll notice I said "disabilities," not "special needs." Gosh I hate the term special needs. All of our children are special and they all have special needs. Sometimes I get so tired of being politically correct because I can't say what I really intend to say using the words I'm supposed to use.

Anyways, here are some more of my thoughts on this topic. This was adapted from a listserve discussion.

First I should recognize that if a child has special needs but can be successful in the gen ed setting, be it for academics or parties or sports of whatever, great! That is fabulous. For those kids, go for it!

I also want to recognize that I think we can all agree that our kids should not have to be ashamed of their disability, nor have to miss out or go home instead of participating in something.

But we need to recognize that that is not the case for all children. Generalizations from one child to another simply cannot be made, each child is an individual. It would be ludicrous to tell a parent of a child who is successful in the gen ed setting that they should be in an alternate setting, but it’s equally ludicrous to tell a parent of a child who is successful in an alternate setting – and not successful in the gen ed setting – that they should be in the gen ed setting anyways. One size does not fit all.

I agree that separate is not and never can be equal. However for my son I would not expect separate to be equal, that is the whole point. If it were the same, the accomodation would not be needed in the first place. The whole reason he needs separate is because he needs something that’s different, inherently unequal if you will.

If we eliminate separate but equal (to borrow the term) and require that the special ed kids be able to participate in the gen ed class and accept no alternative accommodation, then what really happens is that those kids who can’t do it, for whatever reason, wind up getting NOTHING. For example, the parent who said that her daughter was supposed to go to the party in the gen ed class but that it was overstimulating for her, so the option was to sign her out of school early and go home. I fail to see how “nothing” is better than a separate accommodation. A big example of this is the special needs storytime we talked about a few months back. While some see the alternative to be regular storytime, and for some kids that is the case, what really happens for kids like mine is that if no special storytime were available, he would be at home having no storytime at all. This is a giant step backwards, and most certainly not the intent of Inclusion.

Also, consider that if the typical activity is the goal, how are you going to get there? Perhaps if I can take my son to special parties, special sporting activities, special storytimes, etc, we can use that as an opportunity to practice appropriate behavior, and one day maybe we’ll be able to do the typical stuff. But if special is not permitted and we just stay home, how would he have the opportunity to practice? Consider the idea that the special activities can be used as a springboard to the mainstream activities. They’re just a step in the journey.

So in an effort to put the square peg in the round hole, sometimes, as with high-functioning kids or those without behavior or sensory issues, you can make it all work, and that’s wonderful. But in other cases, it becomes “not politically correct” to offer a alternative, what those kids end up getting is nothing. Without the “special” class party or the “special” storytime or the “special” sporting activity, kids like my son would not be somehow miraculously able to participate in the typical setting. He would be doing nothing. And on top if that, he would be making no progress towards ever being able to participate because he would not have a safe place to practice those skills.

For many people, Full Inclusion is a happy term because it conjures up images of their child merrily going about their daily activities and growing up side-by-side with their typical peers. And for many kids that’s a reality! That is so wonderful, and for those kids great strides have been made in the past decades. But for me, the idea of Full Inclusion cuts like a knife because what it boils down to is two choices – cope with the mainstream, or go home and hide. My son can’t cope with the mainstream in many, many instances, yet I should not have to keep him at home nor hide him away as if his disability is something to be ashamed of. That is most certainly not the intent of full inclusion. So, in order to include my son to the fullest extent possible, it’s just a fact that accommodations need to be made.

“Inclusion to the fullest extent possible” is a whole lot better than “Inclusion or go home and hide.”

Coke in School

OK, the title grabs you, right? No, I'm not talking about cocaine...I'm talking about Coca-cola. And other kinds of soda (for those of you who live in the North and don't know that "coke" means all kinds of soda...)

Anyways, I'm not talking about sodas in vending machines in the high schools. Or maybe even the middle schools. And I don't think the schools should be able to dictate what kids bring in their school lunches. If some other parent wants to put a can of coke in their child's lunchbag, it's none of my business. But to actually promote sodas in the elementary schools? I draw the line there.

So at our school for the school carnival last fall, they have this bottle-ring toss game. They ask parents to send in 2-liter sodas and they use them all to make this giant field of bottles and the kids throw rings and get to keep whatever they can throw the ring around. Why they couldn't use 2-liter lemonades, or fuit punch, of whatever else, I don't know. But I donated 2-liter lemonades and protested silently in that way.

But for the holiday party (remember it's not called a Christmas party) this is what happened. Parents in our class where given a list and asked to bring in something from that list. The only beverage listed on the list was "the small cans of soda." Keep in mind, this is 3rd grade. Not juice boxes or juice pouches, but small cans of soda. Of course, I chose some other snack item to send in, but I knew that for my child, the only beverage that would be served was soda. That is just plain wrong! Well I sent an email to the room mom asking if we could have some other options, which she arranged for, but then my child is in the awkward position of wanting the coke but choosing the fruit juice because mean ol' Mom said so. I know I can't control what my kids drink forever, but I had hoped to at least control what goes into their growing bodies at least through elementary school. And if someone were to seduce them with coke, I would have expected that from the media, but not from the PTA moms for goodness sakes.

Multi-Level Marketing

OK so I have a friend who got into Multi-Level Marketing. She isn't the first! Over the years I've had countless aquaintences who sold Mary Kay, Arbonne, Avon, Pampered Chef, Homemade Gourmet, Silpada, Candlelight, Southern Living at Home, Uppercase Living, even sex toys, you name it, someone sells it. But this most recent one is jewelry. For some reason this scenario bugs me and I'll tell you why.

Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM, has always bugged me because the whole concept is a pyramid. Someone always makes money (usually the company, but there are enough "independent distributors" who are semi-successful that there is the appearance of success) and someone always loses money - namely the poor saps who buy the stuff that they don't really need, and the even poorer saps who get talked into selling the product, put their own money into it, and then eventually realize that once they have sold to all of their friends, there really isn't any place left to go with it other than to be obnoxious and start hitting up friends of friends and complete strangers.

But here is the deal with the jewelry. They actually claim God is behind their company. Not in a psychotic way mind you, but the woman speaking at the party said that when she prayed for a solution to wanting to be home with her family instead of having a traditional job, God told her to sell jewelry. (I've heard this same speech from the Mary Kay ladies, so I'm gathering that this is a common way to rationalize going into a business where your income comes, basically, from your friends' pockets.) And in the company's mission statement, the first statement is about serving God while selling jewelry. I don't recall the exact wording, and I can't check it because you aren't allowed to leave the party with the catalog. But I'm pretty confident that there are plenty of ways to be in service to your fellow man that would rank more highly than selling stuff people don't need (even really beautiful stuff, and it is really beautiful stuff) to people who probably have bills to pay, credit card debt, and kids' college to save for. I can't see how talking your friends into making poor spending decisions is a Godly thing to do. Maybe if you really want to be in service to your friends, you should share tips with them on how to be frugal...but I digress.

Now with any kind of MLM, the money doesn't fall from the sky. While you are busy earning free gifts and stuff, you have to know that the money came from somewhere, and the somewhere is undoubtedly your own pocket and/or that of your friends, or your friends' friends. If you can buy 3 and get 1 free, you can be sure that the items were priced significantly over value such that the company is still making it's profit even after you get your freebie. If you can earn free product by hosting a party for your friends, then your friends' purchases were inflated such that they paid for your free stuff. Obviously. How else would they stay in business?

Now there are several giant problems with this thinking. One, doesn't the Bible say something about graven images, and also something about coveting thy neighbor? Well, selling jewelry to women on the pretense that they need beautiful jewelry to feel good about themselves is merely a cleverly-disguised statement that material possessions and physical beauty can bring you happiness. What would Jesus have said about:
Happiness?
Physical beauty?
Material posessions?
Think about it.

Interestingly, I'm the last person you'd expect to use the Bible to back up a point. But the folks selling the jewelry have God in their company, for goodness sakes. I don't suppose God is too happy about all the stuff he is said to endorse...wars, football teams, even multi-level marketing.

To veer off topic a bit, one of my issues with organized religion (OK, namely Christian religions) is how people who are supposedly religious seem to find ways to rationalize stuff like this. They are all about taking the Bible literally, except where it doesn't suit their needs. And they still think they're better off than non-Christians. As far as I can tell, most of what the Western world stands for is an affront to what Jesus stood for. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

Bottom line about Multi Level Marketing - if it can't be purchased at Wal-Mart, you probably don't really need it!